What guides are we actually responsible for compiling on our wiki? about meta

[nthrow]

I think pentesting and opsec resources would be the obvious candidates, perhaps eventually discriminating the 'introductory' guides geared towards activists and normies alike from the more in-depth training courses should the two become cluttered in due time.

[fabacab]

@nthrow I think you're right.

Over the past couple of months I've been investing energy into creating "beginner-friendly" infosec resources, but have not yet created a "Reader's Digest" of these resources as a "Guide."

Currently we have a "Guides and Advice" section on our wiki homepage, and it links to several guides, but only one really exists: Security culture guide.

However, I don't think we're really creating a security culture guide, as many of those already exist. What we actually want is a guide that links to a subset of those guides, and possibly some others. This sort of already exists in the "For defenders" section of the InfoSec wiki page, but that list is hyper-specific with respect to digital security.

So, moving forward, maybe we should do one (or more) of the following:

• Create a similar list in the Security culture guide as the InfoSec § For Defenders stuff, that is more general?
• Redeclare our purpose with the "Security culture guide" as more specifically focused on digital stuff? (It doesn't look like anyone else is really using this organizing space, anyway.)
• Position the InfoSec page's material as a more clearly-signposted subset of the Security culture guide.

[fabacab]

I've made an executive decision and revamped the guides section to focus solely on "welcoming" material. I consider this issue closed. Feel free to re-open if there are objections.

[fabacab]

Ping @nthrow, I've revisited this and decided to massively restructure the "guides" section in a more narrow way to reflect the sort of information that we actually developed. Have a peek at the new Security culture portal page if you're interested.